Message-Id: <m0ub62o-0002TvC@beach.w3.org>
To: Matthew James Marnell <marnellm@portia.portia.com>
Cc: gleeson@unimelb.edu.au (Martin Gleeson),
Subject: Re: Introducing NetscapeML
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 30 Jun 1996 03:25:38 -0400."
<199606300725.DAA15348@portia.portia.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 10:03:09 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>
In message <199606300725.DAA15348@portia.portia.com>, Matthew James Marnell wri
tes:
>:>And I'm pleasantly surprised to see Microsoft setting an
>:>example - they too started off down the path of 'HTML extensions',
>:>but now seem to be fully supporting the standards process.
>
>Yes, somewhat refreshing and scary. While we know that the fine
>people that participate here on these lists are with the standards
>track, I can't help but wonder if the upper management in Redmond
>might not tell the developers to "out-Netscape" Netscape. I feel
>that that would hurt the whole process.
>
>I wonder if we can get some official word out of W3C about their
>feelings about Netscape's gambit?
The official word from W3C regarding HTML is at:
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/Activity
when/if our stance on the situation changes, we'll say it there first.
Stay tuned to:
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Style/Activity
as well.
A lot of claims have been made in this thread, many of them without
much evidence. I encourage folks _not_ to put too much stake in
anything posted to a public discussion forum like this. The result is
often fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Dig in and check it out for
yourself.
Daniel W. Connolly "We believe in the interconnectedness of all things"
Research Scientist, MIT/W3C PGP: EDF8 A8E4 F3BB 0F3C FD1B 7BE0 716C FF21
<connolly@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/People/Connolly/